Critiquing layout and design: Message fail?

This billboard faces the east-bound lane of I-70 just outside of Topeka, KS. My wife and I used to look forward to the last image on this board - it said, "Superpower your baby" and had a badly photoshopped greased/ cowlicked baby head on a superman body. The text sent a positive message re: breastfeeding and reading to your baby - both activities I support. The graphics just cracked us up. But the first few times we saw this board no one spoke.

Note this picture has been enlarged, enhanced and sharpened. Traveling at 70 mph, the fine print disappears. Try standing back from your screen to get the effect. I read a harsh message for working mothers.

I try to live by a philosophy of , "Don't attribute to malice what can otherwise be explained by incompetence," and I want to trust the KS Department of Health (who sponsored the message) has it's heart in the right place, but the look at the picture. Why a baby blue background? To blend with the sky and make it invisible (not effective from a marketing perspective), or to call to mind male babies? Why? And white lettering on a pale blue background?

"Being a mother doesn't stop from 9-5" has to sting any mother. Isn't working outside the home for a new mother an incredibly touchy subject - that should be approached carefully with sensitivity and tact? Not until stopping by the side of the road as close as I could get to take this picture did I even see the fine print about, "ask your employer for breastfeeding options." THAT should be the privileged text - that should pop - but it's nearly invisible. And why would someone look twice if the initial image slapped them with guilt trip?

I've only discussed this with one other person, but feedback would be appreciated - is this an epic fail, something worse, merely lame, or am I reading too much into this? I grew up in an art studio and used to have these sort of discussions. Is it effective for it's intended audience? I'd also appreciate anyone analyzing the photo/graphic.

food: Korean

One of the best parts of any trip through Springfield MO is a stop Golden Korean Restaurant (map). Korean meals come with the traditional 5-6 small dishes that make the experience fun. The soft tofu soup (with a raw egg thrown in to cook at your table - hurry if you like the yolk soft) rocks.



The best Korean food food I've found tho is in Overland Park. Rainbow Korean has the best ChapJae (a chewy clear noodle dish with meat and veg) and Bulgogi I've had (very tender and flavorful. This reviewer agrees tho he seems hung up on the decor). The KimBab (Korean Sushi roll - but don't call it sushi in a Korean Restaurant please) isn't bad either - but if an awesome fresh "sushi" experience interests you - hit the Asian supermarket across the street on the weekend. They make it right in front of you and you get 2 big rolls (sliced for convenience) for only 5$.

For some reason I can't find directions thru the interwebs so pardon my lame map. If you fail to great the waitress in Korean - or if one or more of your party is visibly non-Asian - you may have to ask for chop sticks and KimChi which come with some meals (if they think you'd like them, but maybe because stereotypical non-Asians balk at the smell of KimChi...), but otherwise the service is pleasant.

The also have a Korean version of Kung Pao Chicken - there should be a picture on the wall - it is amazing. I can't remember what they call it. (Kiangpang chicken?) It's a Korean take on a Chinese dish - as opposed to the American take usually found in Chinese restaurants.

In America, there are no small eggs.

We do something illogical with in American culture regarding our language used to describe sizes. An Ivy League educated linguist I worked for in Taiwan used to ponder about this, and ask me, "Why, in America, don't you have small eggs? Some recipes call for one or two small eggs, but the grocery stores only carry medium, large, extra large and jumbo. What happened to the small eggs?"

She wasn't a native English speaker - but she was a citizen and she lived in the states about 20 years, raised a couple native English speakers, and held advanced degrees (including a PhD) in English language and linguistics. This issue seriously intrigued her and has been on my mind for well over a decade.

The issue may be fairly recent. My grandparents (both born before the 1920's here in the US) insisted on buying small minnows for crappie fishing because even larger fish may prefer a small bait. I remember buying small minnows. I defy you to go into any bait store today and find small minnows.

I just ordered a small chicken noodle soup for my toddler at a chain restaurant. The clerk was so concerned, "Oh my. I'm sorry. We only have medium and large." His concern touched me, but isn't medium half-way between to extremes - small and large. How is it logically possible to have only two sizes and one of them is medium?

The descriptive linguist in me speculates that these words have become homonyms of themselves - in effect a sort of headless noun. Medium is a proper name for a choice - not a description of a size. So I said, "Oh, you mean "Medium" with a capital 'M', I meant small with a lower-case 's'"... which caused him to just stop talking and give me the soup - which btw came in a cup not much bigger than a thimble.

Or is it a popular/cultural fetish that equates large with good and small with inferior? This isn't always so. Small vegetables often have a better texture and flavor - and fine restaurants prefer them. btw - I grew up eating baseball bat sized zuccini - but they should be picked at 6-8 inches or smaller. I worked on a commercial vegetable farm that supplied some of the finest cafe's on the plaza and had the chance to talk with some chefs.

If anyone has insight - or similar experiences - or an opinion re: my linguistic theory, please weigh in.

And yes, I know Pinker uses "headless nouns" almost exclusively to discuss idiosyncratic pluralization - but that doesn't mean the phenomena is restricted to that context. If you have an equally viable explanation share. A comedian could have fun with this coming at it from a cultural perspective.

Some truth about college

by Jorge Cham of PHDcomic.com click to see detail

Real graphic for comparison contrast

While we're on the subject of sugar

From Laughing Squid

Spotting bias in texts (cherry picking part 2)

Sugar is good food (!?)The good folks at Boing Boing shared this after finding it at an individuals blog dedicated to vintage ads.

See also: Fox News Advocates Shutting Down Libraries